4.6 Review

Treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type II (Hunter syndrome): results from a systematic evidence review

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 11, 页码 1187-1201

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.30

关键词

enzyme replacement therapy; hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; Hunter syndrome; idursulfase; mucopolysaccharidosis type II; systematic evidence review

资金

  1. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: A pilot systematic evidence review to establish methodology utility in rare genetic diseases, support clinical recommendations, and identify important knowledge gaps. Methods: Broad-based published/gray-literature searches through December 2015 for studies of males with confirmed mucopolysaccharidosis type II (any age, phenotype, genotype, family history) treated with enzyme replacement therapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Preset inclusion criteria employed for abstract and full document selection, and standardized methods for data extraction and assessment of quality and strength of evidence. Results: Twelve outcomes reported included benefits of urinary glycosaminoglycan and liver/spleen volume reductions and harms of immunoglobulin G/neutralizing antibody development (moderate strength of evidence). Less clear were benefits of improved 6-minute walk tests, height, early treatment, and harms of other adverse reactions (low strength of evidence). Benefits and harms of other outcomes were unclear (insufficient strength of evidence). Current benefits and harms of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are unclear, based on dated, low-quality studies. A critical knowledge gap is long-term outcomes. Consensus on selection of critical outcomes and measures is needed to definitively evaluate treatment safety and effectiveness. Conclusion: Minor methodology modifications and a focus on critical evidence can reduce review time and resources. Summarized evidence was sufficient to support guidance development and highlight important knowledge gaps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据